The move was backed by the city council's licensing committee on Wednesday night despite bad-tempered clashes with rival politicians over which streets to include.

The police wanted five streets - Friar Street, Quay Street, City Walls Road, Bridge Street and Deansway - to be kept off the list on the grounds they had no crime concerns there any more, but the committee disagreed.

Under the new list, which is going to full council for a vote before it can come into use, in each street there will be a presumption of "refusal" for any new alcohol venues unless a bidder can prove it will not increase crime.

Councillor Roger Knight said: "I'm strongly in favour of making additions to this policy but I wouldn't want it weakened.

"The decisions we make over new venues are strongly influenced by it - the presumption of refusal is a very effective tool in policing the city centre."

But Councillor Richard Udall said: "This is the second or third time in recent years we've added streets to this list and that makes me nervous, because we are intervening in a free market.

"We are potentially preventing establishments from opening."

During the debate he criticised Tory Councillor Allah Ditta, saying the committee chairman "doesn't have a view" despite his ward covering the city centre.

Cllr Knight said it would be "irresponsible and juvenile" to take streets off the final list, but Labour Councillor Jo Hodges countered by saying it was "logical" to keep crimes with low crime rates off it.

During a vote the committee agreed to add all 10 new streets to the list and not remove any, taking it to 32 in total.

The updated list, known as the 'cumulative impact policy', is expected to come into force from July subject to full council approval.

Comments

New pubs and clubs?
We can't even keep the old ones we like to go to!dropkick55

New pubs and clubs?
We can't even keep the old ones we like to go to!

Score: 17

DarrenM
3:19pm Sat 14 Jun 14

In a nutshell then the police are incapable of upholding the peace, so we'll just stop more licensed premises from opening.

Worst Farcia can't stop Burglaries either, so will there be planning restrictions on building new houses next?

Then to add to this, in locations where they have no problems all the the council are still going to prevent more licensed premises from being opened (on the off chance that someone did want to open a new business there), for reasons which presumably must remain secret,

Unless "a bidder can prove it will not increase crime." - And how exactly are they supposed to go about proving a negative then?

"saying there was "no logical reason" to leave the streets off." - Obviously his definition of logical varies from the rest of the world..

Farcial......

In a nutshell then the police are incapable of upholding the peace, so we'll just stop more licensed premises from opening.
Worst Farcia can't stop Burglaries either, so will there be planning restrictions on building new houses next?
Then to add to this, in locations where they have no problems all the the council are still going to prevent more licensed premises from being opened (on the off chance that someone did want to open a new business there), for reasons which presumably must remain secret,
Unless "a bidder can prove it will not increase crime." - And how exactly are they supposed to go about proving a negative then?
"saying there was "no logical reason" to leave the streets off." - Obviously his definition of logical varies from the rest of the world..
Farcial......DarrenM

In a nutshell then the police are incapable of upholding the peace, so we'll just stop more licensed premises from opening.

Worst Farcia can't stop Burglaries either, so will there be planning restrictions on building new houses next?

Then to add to this, in locations where they have no problems all the the council are still going to prevent more licensed premises from being opened (on the off chance that someone did want to open a new business there), for reasons which presumably must remain secret,

Unless "a bidder can prove it will not increase crime." - And how exactly are they supposed to go about proving a negative then?

"saying there was "no logical reason" to leave the streets off." - Obviously his definition of logical varies from the rest of the world..

Farcial......

Score: 5

gmoore1207
10:07am Sat 14 Jun 14

the final list, but Labour Councillor Jo Hodges countered by saying it was "logical" to keep crimes with low crime rates off it.what does this mean please edit these things properly

the final list, but Labour Councillor Jo Hodges countered by saying it was "logical" to keep crimes with low crime rates off it.what does this mean please edit these things properlygmoore1207

the final list, but Labour Councillor Jo Hodges countered by saying it was "logical" to keep crimes with low crime rates off it.what does this mean please edit these things properly

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here